Monday, February 18, 2008

Gun Control Hypocrisy

Guns for me, but not for thee

Glenn Reynolds links to an article from Newsmax that describes how gun control fanatic Senator Charles Schumer trods around with an armed bodyguard. The obvious implication is that Schumer cares a great deal about his own protection, and feels that having a trained marksman around is valuable, but he wants to make it far more difficult for the rest of us schmoes to have a similar level of protection. Consider me disgusted.

This seems to be a widespread attitude, as well. So long as a person feels safe, they don't want to own a firearm, and they don't want it to be easy for anybody else to own one either. Yet the person who actually might need a gun for protection is left with having these kinds of folks determine his access to a tool for personal protection. Surely the Second Amendment shouldn't be allowing this, but the Supreme Court has refused to address the issue since 1936, and then only in a vague way.

I rail on against the courts often, and this is one reason. Here we have an amendment that plainly guarantees a personal right to bear arms, and yet the Supreme Court has never managed to recognize this right. A non-existant right to abortion? They found that. But the words "shall not be infringed" in reference to gun rights somehow have eluded them. Sheesh.